In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the Delhi High Court's directive that ordered the Wikimedia Foundation to delete a Wikipedia page detailing the defamation proceedings initiated by news agency Asian News International (ANI) against the platform. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of media freedom and transparency in judicial proceedings.
The controversy began when ANI filed a defamation lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation, alleging that its Wikipedia page contained statements labeling ANI as a "propaganda tool" for the incumbent government. ANI contended that such descriptions were defamatory and sought the removal of the content, along with damages amounting to ₹2 crore. The Delhi High Court, in response, ordered the removal of the Wikipedia page, citing concerns that the content was prima facie contemptuous and interfered with ongoing court proceedings.
However, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, took a divergent view. The bench emphasized that courts are public institutions and that media reporting on judicial proceedings cannot be curtailed lightly. Justice Bhuyan articulated that it is not within the court's purview to instruct the media on content deletion, highlighting that both the judiciary and the media are foundational pillars of democracy. He further noted that for a liberal democracy to thrive, these institutions should complement each other.
The Court referenced the precedent set in the Sahara case, which allows courts to postpone the reporting of judicial proceedings only if there's a demonstrable substantial risk of prejudice to a pending trial. Such postponement orders must meet the twin tests of necessity and proportionality and are preventive rather than punitive measures. Additionally, the Court cited the Naresh Mirajkar judgment, underscoring that trials held under public scrutiny serve as a check against judicial caprice and bolster public confidence in the justice system.
Drawing from these precedents, the Supreme Court observed that courts, as public institutions, must remain open to observation, debate, and criticism. It stressed that every significant issue, even if sub judice, should be open to public and press debate. The Court's decision reinforces the notion that judicial transparency and media freedom are integral to the democratic fabric of the nation.
This ruling not only reaffirms the media's role in reporting on judicial matters but also delineates the boundaries of judicial intervention in media content. It sends a clear message that while the judiciary must protect the integrity of legal proceedings, it must also safeguard the freedoms that allow for open discourse and accountability.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.